Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
ITER Test Blanket Module—ALARA Investigations for Port Cell Pipe Forest Replacement
Previous Article in Journal
Radiation Workers and Risk Perceptions: Low Dose Radiation, Nuclear Power Production, and Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Previous Article in Special Issue
Concept of Contamination Control Door for DEMO and Proof of Principle Design
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Heat Pipe-Based DEMO Divertor Target Concept: High Heat Flux Performance Evaluation

J. Nucl. Eng. 2023, 4(1), 278-296; https://doi.org/10.3390/jne4010021
by Wen Wen 1,*, Bradut-Eugen Ghidersa 1, Wolfgang Hering 1, Jörg Starflinger 2 and Robert Stieglitz 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
J. Nucl. Eng. 2023, 4(1), 278-296; https://doi.org/10.3390/jne4010021
Submission received: 31 October 2022 / Revised: 21 February 2023 / Accepted: 23 February 2023 / Published: 9 March 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author have taken a series of experiments to study the heat pipe evaporator operating limits with liquid inventory 1.5ml for heat flux until 1MW/m2 with two different type heat source. 

A few minor problems: 1. Some reference source not found, such as line 268, 290, 467. 2. Fig.12 and Fig.17 should be improved. The unit of horizontal axis suggested to use minute. 

Accept after minor revison.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. Please check the revised points in the attached word file.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor revisions:

- line 219: Figure 6 to be fixed;

- line 345: Figure 12 to be fixed (maybe it is just a problem with the pdf file);

- line 457: Figure 17 abscissa axis cut off;

- line 467: Reference source not found.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. Please check the revised points in the attached word file.

Thank you.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The conducted experiments are clearly described in the paper. Some corrections are suggested:

1) English changes are required (here are reported some examples but still other are to be checked)

line 10 are considered to be

line 14 framwork

line 36 for the sintered structure, 

line 195 Taking into account

2) correction of the format style are required in 2.5 e.g. blank line from 219 to 223 

3) some of the reference link shower error (e.g. line 68 and other)

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. Please check the revised points in the attached word file.

Thank you.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop